ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

NCC-1701 Saucer section


GROUP: Members


Report this Jul. 16 2010, 1:49 am

I read in a book, (and I wish I could remember the title, it was something like "How to Write for Star Trek" or something) that the original enterprise had a detachable saucer section.

Clearly never used, otherwise at the end of ST:III it would have been, but does anyone else have this recollection?

Making mistakes so YOU don't have to.

Trekkie 12

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 330

Report this Nov. 26 2010, 12:04 pm

Yes, it does have the capability. But this feature was never used, mostly because it was a military vessel and had no families on it.

Pain is a thing of the mind. The mind can be controlled. -Spock


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Dec. 23 2010, 3:27 pm

yea.. I think that it was covered in one of the "Lost Years" novels ("A Flag Full of Stars", I think, but it's been years since I've read it.)  I think the saucer was separated for the refit.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 184

Report this Dec. 24 2010, 6:14 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

If you look at the original Enterprise NCC 1701 of which I have a model here at home (OK you can't see it) but it has on the underneath the saucer the thingamygygs to allow detachment or it to fly away or whatever it does when it detaches. Now I thought it was a feature always built into it in TOS but never mentioned. In another TOS thread they showed that Kirk told Scotty to attempt to get away from the planet in 'The Apple' by detaching the saucer section (although he said it in a slightly different way). He wasn't able to do it though.

I think what Kirk said was "blast out of there with the star drive section" or something very similar to that.


GROUP: Members


Report this Dec. 26 2010, 10:52 am

I thought I read somewhere (probably in that original "Making of Star Trek" book)that the original intention was to have the saucer section always seperate to land on a planet, but this was too expensive of an sfx to do (on their old 1960's budget), so they came up with the "transporter beam" where the actors were just faded in to the scene (much cheaper).
To me, the transporter always seemed way too advanced for the rest of their technology. I actually prefer the idea of physical transport. But then we wouldn't have "beam me up Scotty!".


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 533

Report this Dec. 26 2010, 12:04 pm

Check out MR. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. There is a cutaway showing a planetfall ramp , expolisve bolts and landing padds. The reason it was never used is because of production costs.

bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1324

Report this Dec. 26 2010, 1:55 pm

Yeah, I didn't know that the saucer section could detach until I read it in a book. Like Andoriangrey and Klingondog said, it was too expensive to have it detach. So, voila! The transporter was created.

"Captain, life is not a dream." - Spock "Can you please continue the petty bickering? I find it quite intriguing." - Data


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12614

Report this Dec. 26 2010, 2:06 pm

As you guys have said it was stated on screen that the Nacelles could be jetasoned, and underneath the saucer section we can see that there's "retractable strutts" for landing.
After the re-fit I'm not sure if the design allowed for seperation but it would make sense to keep the feature.

If you can read this it means I've got something to work on here.

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Dec. 26 2010, 6:03 pm

In the episode "The Apple" saucer seperation is mentioned. It was supposed to be a last resort maneuver for all starfleet cruisers. I read that Jefferies meant for it to be done via explosive bolts and could only be reattached at a starbase.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum